For me, PB is almost unuseful...
- You can easily change of GUID.
- Screenshots are more and more often black because of video drivers.
- It induces lags.
- It can be easily defeated.
- Even about scan of cvars or md5tools, it is not efficient.
- Functions like bans by IP/range can be done with iptables.
- It gives a lot of false postive like with
HoverSnap
- Streaming is just diffusion of the GUID of a *cheap* cheater to protect other servers which would detect him the same.
Nowadays, PB is the "anti-cheat of the poor" or "anti cheap cheater".
No serious cheater is disturbed by PB anymore.
It is just to give you the feeling the server is protected just because you have setup plenty of rules in a config file.
I know some servers on W:ET where it has been totally disabled, experience of *real admins* (I mean responsible people, not children playing the god with the power they have) is judged as sufficient.
I don't think it's a good idea to make pay even 5 bucks for a GUID, the purpose of the game is to stay free about money and engagement.
Anyone should have the right to play (even some cheaters who can have tried *for the fun* one time).
But instead of this, we could implement a system of GUID based on a x509 certificate delivered by a central server (why not this one).
It's easy to implement, a self-signed CA key is enough.
The system could even be done server by server with the main, so only trusted people could enter on this server.
If the key is revoked, it will be for all the servers (and require a new registration).
Of course, this system would be optional, like it is about to install or not PB.
And it zould avoid to have this backdoor/trojan which has access to any resource/file of the computer as SYSTEM service (especially when we consider how much *efficient* it is)
@dutchmeat: nice idea, but I think it is a bit more complex than just to call directly some functions in .dll/.so, it would be to much easy to fool...
They surely included some inline code, obfuscation and checksums to avoid quick reverse...
In the worst case, we could recompile the source and compare the executable with the original one... and to patch the old one with some new code with PRELOAD/dll injection at startup
